Charlie Kirk shot!

[User]

3 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

If one is going to cheerlead a hammer attack on a politician’s geriatric husband, is it surprising when they get caught up in the exact thing they’re fomenting?   I don’t find it surprising. 

He did not cheerlead a hammer attack. 

Again, you are a pathetic, lying scumbag. 

 

[CouchPotato]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Do you know what that maxim means?

How did Charlie live by the sword? Believing people have the right to own a gun is not living by the sword.

Very truly I tell you, unless a kernel of wheat falls to the ground and dies, it remains only a single seed. But if it dies, it produces many seeds.
 

https://biblehub.com/john/12-24.htm

[User]

2 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Charlie Kirk did not live by gun violence...

Why must you folks insist on posting this stupidity instead of just condemning his murder?

 

[TreeBeard]

10 minutes ago, User said:

He did not cheerlead a hammer attack. 

Again, you are a pathetic, lying scumbag. 

 

Seems like someone who calls anyone a patriot and a hero for bailing out the would-be assassin meets my definition of cheerleading.   Why would you think that he wasn’t cheerleading the attempt on the old geezer’s life when he makes those comments?  

Edited September 11, 2025 by TreeBeard

[User]

4 minutes ago, TreeBeard said:

Seems like someone who calls anyone a patriot and a hero for bailing out the would-be assassin meets my definition of cheerleading.   Why would you think that he wasn’t cheerleading the attempt on the old geezer’s life when he makes those comments?  

What you think "seems" like something and your making outright false statements are worlds apart from each other. 

I don't have to answer any of your stupid questions as to why he said what he did to point out that he 100% did not say the bullshit lies you are saying he did. 

Until you can own up to your lies, you don't get to pretend like this is some kind of normal exchange where you ask me questions and expect to get an answer. 

 

[Aristides]

50 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That's your take on what he said? 😂

You honestly think that the word "hero" in that context means that Charlie was saying that DePape was a hero? 

Your reading comprehension is well below grade 4 level, or you're a lying f'ing weasel, buddy. 

FYI, the gist of what he's saying is: "Leftists revere people who let violent criminals out of jail (ie, the Dems and their "we don't throw people in jail for that stuff anymore" DA's), so if someone wants to be a hero among the leftists in San Fran right now, then they should just go bail that guy out, right? Why should that particular violent offender serve jailtime while criminals who attack less famous people get off Scot-free all the time? The Dems re-worked the system to keep guys like that on the street, so be a hero, and get that man out of jail." 

Do ya get it, Treebeard? 

Honest to God, the main reason that you don't like Charlie Kirk is because his arguments are way over your head. I'm not being mean, you're just really really unlucky when it comes to thinking and understanding. 

So if Pelosi's attacker had managed to kill him, he still should have got bail? Is that what you are saying?

[eyeball]

4 hours ago, Nationalist said:

You fcks really do just beg for a war to start, dont you.

If righties and lefties looked like this it would have been game on decades ago.

[User]

2 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So if Pelosi's attacker had managed to kill him, he still should have got bail? Is that what you are saying?

He is pointing out the deliberate stupidity and obfuscation in reading into what Kirk was saying, and you turn around and do the same BS to him.

 

[Aristides]

Just now, User said:

He is pointing out the deliberate stupidity and obfuscation in reading into what Kirk was saying, and you turn around and do the same BS to him.

 

DePape was ordered held without bail so both WCM and Kirk were full of it.

[herbie]

4 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

Of course as a conservative, I feel safe in asking you this.

Glad you do.
I don't.

Amended Proverb: Sometimes you reap more than you sow.

[Michael Hardner]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

  Anthony was unpredictable and took no excuses, and his sympathies were clearly with the Left.  

I was going to take the night off but man are you wrong about this. You're wrong but a lot of things actually, come to think of it. 

From my conversations with him offline, he was more right-wing than most on here.

[User]

5 minutes ago, Aristides said:

DePape was ordered held without bail so both WCM and Kirk were full of it.

Try listening to Kirk, he was speculating on bail, making a point about bail policy, he was not full of anything. 

 

[CouchPotato]

[Aristides]

1 minute ago, CouchPotato said:

Ya, that's really sad. 

[Greg]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

Anthony would ban you for thinking the wrong thing. Anthony was unpredictable and took no excuses, and his sympathies were clearly with the Left. You weren't a lot better, for that matter. And as I recall, it was mostly people on the right you banned too. 

complete nonsense. Utter bullshit. 

[Greg]

1 hour ago, Shady said:

Boges’ is a sh!t stain but I wouldn’t want him banned.  I just hope he realizes that “divisive” is subjective, and that could be used to justify killing anyone, even in Canada, like Mr. Trudeau for example.  

He's banned, and will not return.

I'm officially done with this type of nonsense.  More will be banned shortly... You've all been warned.

If threats of violence continue, I'll send you'll packing.

I'm officially on the war path.. cross me and you'll be banned.

 

[Moonlight Graham]

3 hours ago, User said:

Yes, I accept that when you go to the lake and like swimming pools, this results in some people drowning... 

Has absolutely nothing to do with some drunk and indifferentt idi0t on a boat running someone over and them drowning while they were out enjoying a nice day on the lake...

 

Well the difference is that a boat is designed for boating.  You're not going to ban or restrict every single object that you could bludgeon someone to death with.  A gun, on the other hand, is a tool specifically designed to seriously injure and kill human beings (or other large animals).

In Canada there's far fewer gun owners and far fewer shootings. In Japan there's virtually no gun ownership and virtually no shootings.  So again, people in a democratic society can choose to live by the laws they wish, but "live by the sword, die by the sword" applies.  If Americans are willing to accept the risks of relatively easy and widespread gun ownership that's their choice and they live with the consequences of those actions, good or bad.

[Greg]

3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

In Canada there's far fewer gun owners and far fewer shootings. In Japan there's virtually no gun ownership and virtually no shootings.  So again, people in a democratic society can choose to live by the laws they wish, but "live by the sword, die by the sword" applies.  If Americans are willing to accept the risks of relatively easy and widespread gun ownership that's their choice and they live with the consequences of those actions, good or bad.

Ha, gun ownership = violence.

A ridiculous argument, for sure.

Please enlighten us all with more evidence of your ideas. 

[User]

Just now, Moonlight Graham said:

Well the difference is that a boat is designed for boating. 

How is that different? 

A gun is not designed for murder. 

1 minute ago, Moonlight Graham said:

A gun, on the other hand, is a tool specifically designed to seriously injure and kill human beings (or other large animals).

OK. And?

Killing in self defense, the government engaged in war against bad people, these are good things. 

Not all killing is bad. 

The vast majority of guns in the United States sit harmlessly stored in a home by good people not out murdering others. 

3 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

In Canada there's far fewer gun owners and far fewer shootings. In Japan there's virtually no gun ownership and virtually no shootings.  So again, people in a democratic society can choose to live by the laws they wish, but "live by the sword, die by the sword" applies. 

No, it doesn't. Charlie lived by the "sword" of a free society based on rights, including one of gun ownership. Gun ownership != murdering people with guns. 

 

[Shady]

5 minutes ago, Greg said:

He's banned, and will not return.

I'm officially done with this type of nonsense.  More will be banned shortly... You've all been warned.

If threats of violence continue, I'll send you'll packing.

I'm officially on the war path.. cross me and you'll be banned.

 

I can definitely understand why you decided to ban him.  I don’t understand what makes somebody behave that way when something as tragic as this happens.  I just don’t get it.

5 minutes ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Well the difference is that a boat is designed for boating.  You're not going to ban or restrict every single object that you could bludgeon someone to death with.  A gun, on the other hand, is a tool specifically designed to seriously injure and kill human beings (or other large animals).

In Canada there's far fewer gun owners and far fewer shootings. In Japan there's virtually no gun ownership and virtually no shootings.  So again, people in a democratic society can choose to live by the laws they wish, but "live by the sword, die by the sword" applies.  If Americans are willing to accept the risks of relatively easy and widespread gun ownership that's their choice and they live with the consequences of those actions, good or bad.

There’s more guns per capita in Canada than in the United States.

[gatomontes99]

37 minutes ago, Aristides said:

So if Pelosi's attacker had managed to kill him, he still should have got bail? Is that what you are saying?

No. He would have got the death penalty. But what does he have in common with the two Trump shooters, the trans mass shooters a few weeks back, the Senate baseball team shooter and the Charlotte subway guy? 

[Shady]

3 hours ago, Moonlight Graham said:

Kirk said (paraphrase) that school shooting deaths are the unfortunate cost of the rightful preservation of the 2nd amendment.  He didn't deserve to get murdered and this is terrible, but he's a victim of the society he advocates for.  Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Canada doesn’t have the second amendment and there are more guns per capita than in the United States.  What is your point?  That if there wasn’t a second amendment there would be no gun deaths?    Would you have preferred him being stabbed to death instead?  Regardless, he’s right, the more freedom you have the less security.  I’m not sure what you mean by live by the sword.  He spoke for a living.  You’re just as f**ked up as the cess pool, maybe you should go back there.

[User]

1 minute ago, Shady said:

He spoke for a living.

100% exactly. 

This live by the sword BS is just that. 

[Aristides]

9 minutes ago, Greg said:

Ha, gun ownership = violence.

seriouslyA ridiculous argument, for sure.

Please enlighten us all with more evidence of your ideas. 

Seriously? He didn't say more guns equals more violence, he said more guns means more shootings. There is no doubt about that.

Homicide rate per 100K population

Japan  0.233

Canada  2.273

USA  5.763

[Aristides]

46 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

No. He would have got the death penalty. But what does he have in common with the two Trump shooters, the trans mass shooters a few weeks back, the Senate baseball team shooter and the Charlotte subway guy? 

He has a lot in common. I remember the jokes going around about the Pelosi beating. All I am saying is if anyone can't be outraged about both,  it and the Kirk shooting, they  are a first class hypocrite.

Edited September 11, 2025 by Aristides